Partly allowed

Abdul Hafeez v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024CRLRC/450/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revision cases, the High Court dismissed petitions by accused persons aggrieved by an appellate court judgment. The Court held that the conviction under sections 379 and 411 did not call for interference. However, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds cancelled; other aspects dismissed.

Abdul Hafeez Vs the State of A.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioners/ Accused were directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.27-02-2012 in Cd.R.C.M.P.No.526 of 2012 in Cri.R.C No.332 of 2012.

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the orderof the High Courtdated l5-03-2012 in Crl.RC.M.P.No.712of 2012 in CriR.C No.450 of 2012..

¶3

[^32ss ]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.332 AND 450 OF 2012

¶9

Both The Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment daled 21 .O2.2O12 made in Crl.A.No-31 of 201 1 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Adilabad preferred against the Judgment dated 03.03.201 1 made in C.C.No.4O of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 332 OF 2012

¶11

Between:

¶12

Muktyar Ahmed S/o A/cj.Razak, Occ: Attendar at ADCC Bank Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶13

tvlanthrr Srinivas, S/o Pochaiah, Occ: Pvt. Electrician R/o H.No.20-32, College Road. Mancherial. Adilabad Dist.

¶14

Chippa Jagadish, S/o Babanna, Occ:Garrage Mechanic, Cio Chippa Bapanna, S/o Sammaiah, Hamalivada, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist.

¶15

...Petitioners/Appellants/Al,A3 & A4

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶18

... Res pon denURes po n d e nt

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 450 OF 2012

¶20

Between:

¶21

Abdul Hafeez, Sio Abdul Azeez, Rlo Mancherial, Adilabad Dir;t.

¶22

...Petitioner/Appellant^{ilo.2/Accused} No.2

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of A P ( Through lnspector cf Police) Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,

¶25

..Respondent

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRLRCS : Sri P Lakshma Reddy

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent in both CRLRCs: Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Pro,secutor

¶28

The Court delivered the following: COMMON ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos .332 AND 450 0F 2012

¶31

COMMON ORDER:

¶32

Criminal Revision Case No.332 of 2012 is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.O2.2O12 in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 20 11 on the hle of the learned Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, "the appellate Court") modifying the judgment dated 03.03.2011 in C.C.No.4O of 2005 on the file of the learned principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Mancherial (for short, 'the trial Court,,).

¶33

Criminal Revision Case No.450 of 2OI2 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.O2.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 201 1 before the appellate Court modifying the judgment dated 03.03.2011 in C.C.No.4O of 2005 before the trial Court.

¶34

Since, the issue involved in both these Revision Cases is one ald the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order.

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.R.C.No.332 of 2012 are discussed as hereunder:

¶36

Heard Ms.Praneeth, iearned counsel representing Mr.P,Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the l,etitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecuto - appearing for respondent-State

¶37

¶38

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.O2,2OO3 at about 14:OO hrs, the d.e facto complainant Sridhar a Janardhan, Cashier of ADCC Bank, Mancherial lodged a com:laint with the Police stating that on 25.O2.2OO3, at about 12:30 lLours, while he along with one Muktyar Ahmed, Attender of the Birnk were going on his Scooter to remit cash of Rs.7,OO,O00/- belorlging to ADCC Bank, all of a sudden one unknown person came a,rd stabbed the Attender with Knife and snatched away the cash bag from his hands; when he tried to catch the offender, he esca:ed aiong with another unknown person on a dark blue colour S:ooter. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registere d against the petitioners/ accused for the offences under Sections 120_B, 409, 42O, 37g and 4l 1 of I.p.C.

¶39

The trial Court, vide judgment dated 03.03.2011 in C.C.No.4O of 2O05, found petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 6 not guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 42O and,ll l I.p.C. and thereby, acquitted them; however, found them lluilty for the

K&r

...:'''

offences punishable under Sections 12O-B and 379 ol I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period trf one year each for the offence under Section 379 ol'l.P.C. and to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one _vear for the offence under Section 120 B of I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrentlv. Aggrieved bv the sarne, the petitioners preferred an Appeal

¶44

The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the Appeal. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as hereunder:-

¶45

"60. ln ttre result, this appeal is partlr.allou,ed and ttre convLcnon ol accused persons I to 6 for the ollence under section 120 tl IPC and the consequent sentence ol slmple rmprisonment tbr one vear each imposed against the accused I to 6 b! the ['nncipal Judlcial Firsr Class Magistrate in his .ludgment dated 03.03.2OI I ur C.C.No.40 of 2005 are set aside and consequently the accused persons I to 6 are found not guilty for the oltence under section 120 B IPC and thel, are acquitted under secuon 24it(1) CrPC lbr the said olfence under section 120 B IPC.

¶46

Hor,r,ever the conviction of accusecl t, 4 and 5 and the consequent sentence of simple imprisonment lbr one _year each imposed against them by the tnal Court in rts judgment orl 03.03.201I in CC 40 of 2005 lor the ollence under sectron 379 IPC are conlirmed. Further, the convrctlon ol accused Nos,2, 3 and 6 tbr the offence under section 379 tPC is modilled to sectlon .1I I tPC and hence the sentence of one vear simple imprisonment imposed aBainst ,A2, A3 and A6 lor the oflence under section 379 IPC is set aside and the_y are convicted lbr the ollence under sectron 4ll IPC and thev are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months lor the offence under section 4l I lPC. The rest of judgment stands confirmed. Alter explry oI senrence undergone bv A5, he was released bv jail authoritres as per lhe warrant returned back.

¶47

The accused Al to A4 and 46 are present. Al and A4 are commrttecl to^prrson to serve out the sentence as rmposed bv the trial Court. 42, A3 and A6 are committed to prison to serve out

¶48

¶49

-l

¶50

the sentence as modified bv^{this court. Eachof thear cusedis} furnrshed with a free copv^{of thisjudgment' Thel/ are ali informed} that thev can prefer revision^{before the Hon'bleHigh Corrrt of} A.P., questioning this .iudgment. Thev are^{also informerlthat ir.t} case of anY need lor legal assistance,^{they can approach iheLegal} Services Committee, Hon'ble^High Court^{of A-P,,Hvderabrd"}

¶51

Assailing the same, the petitioners^{preferred the} ;'resent^Revision.

¶52

B. Learned'counsel for the^petitioners "rr66ittr:d^{that thereare} no independent witnesses to^prove the^{offences charged against} the petitioners; that there was no clear^{acqua ntance between} PWl and accused No.4 ald the identification^{,rf accusedNo.4} made by PW1 cannot be believed; but, the^{irppellate Court,} basing on assumptions and presumptions. rendered^the impugned judgment. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

¶53

I . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sub rrtitted that^the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the m aterial available on record, nghtly passed its^judgment and intt rference of this Court. is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

¶54

On behalf of the prosecution, the triai^rlourt examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.Pl to P23, MOs.l to 4. On beha,lf of the defence, none were examined and no documt nt was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documenti, rv evidence, the trial Court observed that the case of prosecLllion rs that on

¶55

¶56

apprehension of the accused, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence under conspiracy and in pursuance of their confession the stolen property, the scooter and blade used by the accused for the commission of the offence were seized from their possession under the cover of panchanama in the p.."".,." of the mediators. However, pWs.9 and lj panch witnesses in whose presence the property was allegedly recovered at the house of each accused did not support the case of prosecution. But PWs.9 and 11 deposed that police recovered the stolen property from the accused at the police station and drafted the panchanama. Though the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, through the evidence of pW13 investigating officer the prosecution provecl the recovery of MOs. 1 to 4 from the possession of the accused. Thus, the evidence of PW13 with regard to the recovery of MOs. I to 4 remained unshaken in the cross.exam ination.

¶57

By the evidence of pWs. 1, S, 6 and B, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the case of Rupees seven lakhs belonging to ADCC Bank was stolen. The accused were found in possession of cash of Rs.6,62,00O/_ and they could not account for their possession. As per Section 1 l4(a) of Indian Evidence 4ct,

Lt*

the accused were^presumed to^{be thieves. The circumstances of} the case, the manner of commission of^{the allegt:doffences.ald} recovery of stolen property,^prove that the^{accused have} conspired.to commit theft of cash^{of ADCC BarLk. Thoughthe} case of the prosecution is that accused^{have committedthe} offence of robbery, the evidence on^{recordshovs that except} towards accused No. 1, there was no hurt^{cau';ed or attempt} made to cause hurt, injury or wrongful restraint^{o - fear of instant} death or instant wrongful restraint. Therefore,^{the trial Court} rendered the judgment dated 03.03.201 1 in C.C.N r.40^{of 2005.}

¶62

12 . In the appeal, the appellate Court obsr:rved that^the evidence of PW13 is categorical with regard to^{recovery of the} amount in pursuance of confession ol the accl sed.^Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtⁱⁿ

¶63

Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthanr, the^{;rppellate Court} found that the version of PW13 with regard to thc confession^ald recovery of amounts from the accused was convir:cing.^Moreover, it is the version of PWI that, accused No.4 contmitted theft^of cash bag. -According^{to PW13,accused No.S sna:ched away the} bag from the hands of accused No.1. MO13 blade 'vas^{seized from} accused No.4; therefore, the evidence of PWI that^{accused No.4}

¶64

'^{eln t9l8SupremeCourt 1511}

¶65

ffi

¶66

¶67

snatched MO3 cash bag with MOi cash cannot be discrediied. PW1 also identified accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Test Identification Parade. ACcused No.5 is said to have assisted accused No.4 to escape by MO2/Scooter. It is accused No.1 who disclosed information about the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 6 a_long with him. The said information discovered falls within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and there is recovery of money in pursuance of confession of accused No.1; therefore, the involvement of accused No.l could not be discredited.

¶68

PW13 admitted that PWI stated that he tried to apprehend the person who snatched the bag but not.the Scooterist; the presence of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 at the scene is not establishe.d; part of cash was recovered from accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 and major portion was recovered from accused No. 1. Therefore, the. evidence of record established the guilt of accused Nos.l, 4 and B for the offence under Sections 379 of I.p.C., further the evidence on record also establishes the guilt of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 for the offence under Section 411 of I.p.C. though the charge was framed under Section 379 of I.P.C. The charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. is a minor charge for the offence. Therefore, the appellate Court convicted accused Nos.2, 3

¶69

¶70

and 6 for the offence under Section 4l l of I.p.C. Moreover, accused Nos.2,3 and 6 from whom the cash wa; recovered, did not offer any explanation for their possession of stolen property. Therefore,, the appellate Court modilied the judgrnent passed by the trial Court and confirmed the conviction of ar:cused Nos.1, 4 and 5 for the offence under Sectio n 379 of I.p.C ; modified and convicted accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 for the oflence under Section 41 1 of I.P.C. instead of Section 379 of I.p.C.; anl set aside the conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C.

¶71

¶72

¶73

This Court vide order dated, 27.02.2012 r;uspended the sentence imposed hgainst the petitioners, pendinl,1 Revision and released them on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,O0O/- with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mancherial. Later, the matter underwent several ad journments.

¶74

In the present case on hand, the appellate Court held that accused Nos.l and 4 are guilty of the offence undrrr Section 379 of I.P.C., accused No.2 and 3 are guilty of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C., which hnding, in my conside -ed view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisionz:l jurisdiction

¶75

¶76

under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the appellate Court.

¶77

Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioners underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court ald as twelve long years have elapsed from the date of filing of this Revision, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioners to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.

¶78

The petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 are directed to pay Rs.50,0OO/- each to the credit of C.C.No.40 of 2005 before the trial Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners fail to comply with the above said direction, they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶79

i B. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, these Criminal Revision Case Nos.332 and 4SO of 2Ol2 stand dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioners shall stand cancelled

¶80

¶81

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalI stand ciosed.

¶82

¶83

ST)/-I.NAGALAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

jt $f'-

ISECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Sessions Judge, Adilabad

¶89

The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. Adilabad DistrictLwith Records if an!

¶90

3 Two ccs to the Pubric^prosecutor, High court for the stak of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶91

One CC to Sri P Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

5 Two CD Copies

ADt(psl

.. .'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711212024

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.Nos.332 and 450 of 2012

¶100

-.a:-::
)4 s
.y'1.i',,,2
/a e'' o^t'.
1:
oo 3 Jutl 6 \l

15s"arc*,r-t '--:=:= --1/'

¶101

DISMISSING THE CRLRCs

¶102

%,{d &**

Abdul Hafeez v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hafeez v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

B.Pruthvi Raj Vs K.Suresh

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Sri Chetan Prakash Bung Vs M/s. Bhagyanagar India Limtied

Azharuddin Ahmed Vs Zeesha Anjum

Yenagandula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana